Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

781–790 of 1001 posts

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#781

Post by sctb »

Yetanfou wrote: post #254

Sweden has hunted Assange for 6 years for the 'crime' of being promiscuous with the wrong women. Oh, and he did not use a condom, but the 'rape victim' still did not mind having dinner with him afterwards. Only later when those two women who thought they'd scored a celebrity found out he'd been rather generous in dealing out his celebrity amongst those who offered him hospitality did they come with a claim of rape. S…

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12725653 and marked it off-topic.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#782

Post by hiringmanager »

ta_donk_gt wrote: post #728
javajosh wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It saddens me greatly to hear this sentiment reflected here at Hacker News. To reject the entire institution of journalism is a radical position, and not justified by fact. Manipulating the timing of release is a common tool used by literally every public figure and institution. To characterize timing manipulation as collusion and to imply that it means no-one can be trusted is a critical mistake. Given my position,…

Behavior such as these from CNN: [1] and [2] has been par for the course for the mainstream media as far as I have seen this year. Scare, divert, suppress, collude, whatever it takes to avoid the public getting to the truth if it will hurt their candidate. I just can't understand how this does not scare people. How is this different from the state run media in third-world countries we used to laugh at as kids? It may…

I can say that the media took a sharp turn around 2000-2001 era, especially after 9/11. The rise of 24x7 news outlets and the internet (which has killed journalism in newspapers financially) turned it into basically a PR agency for the government and powerful interests. "Scare, divert, suppress, collude" have been tactics that have gone on at least for the past 16 years.

In fact, I think they were going on in the 15 years before that as well, though they were less pronounced, less obvious and less extreme. The media has probably always been a bit of a propaganda organ... it's just that the voices were a lot more diverse.

The really alarming thing we've seen this year is Google, Facebook and Reddit starting to use algorithms to suppress some voices and amplify others. Combine that with "Correct The Record" (the army of paid hillary shills who have taken over at least reddit) and the internet is no longer the alternative where you can have a reasonable discussion.

Why participate when your opponent is most likely a hired troll?

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#783

Post by droopybuns »

gotchange wrote: post #754
droopybuns wrote: post #615

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd like to suggest a more significant conclusion. The trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS, Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged. I've been a cord cutter for over a decade. This year I graduated to pitying people who repeat the latest front page story as naive fear-junkies. Everything is suspect. Why burn processing cycles reading stories that on their fa…

Do you consider this piece of journalism as propaganda too? http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/16/world/rise-of-saudi-prince... I could be as much skeptic as you and I can draw my own conclusions for why this particular story might have been published now and not before, and for what purpose, but this doesn't stop me from enjoying reading it and absorbing its juicy details and knowledge. I'm still thankful for NYT for de…

I read this and my first instinct was "what PR team pitched this story?"

Maybe none. But one way the times could re establish credibility with me is to be transparent about how much the writer engaged with pr reps or communications teams in each story. It doesn't have to be exhaustive.

By the way- Part of my journey to this level of skepticism was "Trust me, I'm Lying" by Ryan Holiday https://www.amazon.com/Trust-Me-Lying-Confessions-Manipulato...

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#784

Post by nostrebored »

grandalf wrote: post #699
javajosh wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It saddens me greatly to hear this sentiment reflected here at Hacker News. To reject the entire institution of journalism is a radical position, and not justified by fact. Manipulating the timing of release is a common tool used by literally every public figure and institution. To characterize timing manipulation as collusion and to imply that it means no-one can be trusted is a critical mistake. Given my position,…

How is the NYT trustworthy. The front page contains a dozen or so anti-Trump stories and zero about anything in the email leaks. I want to trust the NYTimes but it's hard to take seriously a paper that ignores something important. The same would be true if it had ignored Trump's leaked tax docs.

Beyond that, the NYT actively culls comments that disagree with their political position. Even when this is not happening, they try to shape discourse with the NYT picks.

Even when I do agree with their positions, it is disconcerting to feel like I am being spoonfed political ideology.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#785

Post by bduerst »

Kequc wrote: post #536
haberman wrote: post #342

I'm still processing this information, and holding out to form a full opinion until more details become available/confirmed. In the meantime, I'm curious, for people who are angry about this: suppose it is actually true that Assange is working together with Russian hackers in an attempt to influence a US election. Do you believe there is any point at which governments should intervene to protect national sovereignty…

There is no evidence Russia is involved. Given what was apparently Podesta's password coupled with a lack of two factor authentication, these leaks wouldn't have exactly required a team of elite hackers. But even if it was Russia. No, you cannot justify a hot war as a result of cyber crime. That is absolutely insane and Clinton is flat out dangerously wrong on that point. The releases expose corruption, it isn't nece…

>There is no evidence Russia is involved.

That's not what the FBI investigation is saying:

> Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson said Friday that they are confident that senior-level Russian officials were involved in the hacks.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/john-podesta-wikileaks...

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#786

Post by vacri »

grandalf wrote: post #730
linkregister wrote: post #723

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The NYT is the publication that originated the story about the HRC external email server during her tenure at the State Department. The NYT frequently publishes articles critical of Hillary Clinton. Here are several hundred: https://www.reddit.com/search?q=subreddit%3Athe_donald+site%... I'm using this example as an internet community that curates information critical to Hillary Clinton and Democratic Party campaigns…

Many of these are old and do not address the content of the emails. There are perhaps 100 significant stories that could have been written based on the information leaked in the past 10 days. We got zero. The paper has also declined to collaborate with Assange to release stories about many other leaks. The NYT is America's Pravda. By the establishment and for the establishment... the definition of conservative. To th…

> We got zero.

For someone ragging on the lack of investigation the press are doing, you're doing a poor job of it yourself. Simply googling 'nyt clinton email' comes up with a handful of stories from the past 10 days (there's also a lot of stories older than 10 days in the search).

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#787

Post by lsh123 »

droopybuns wrote: post #615
pdx wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To further what you're saying. Wikileaks announced for weeks when they were releasing the emails. It was a pre-planned event that the entire world was waiting for. The Trump tape, which had obviously been saved for a rainy day, was trotted out to distract from the pre-announced Wikileaks release. This level of premeditated collusion with the media is not even up for debate at this point, since the very emails they ar…

I'd like to suggest a more significant conclusion. The trust I have had in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, ABC/NBC/CBS, Democratic and Republican parties has been irreparably damaged. I've been a cord cutter for over a decade. This year I graduated to pitying people who repeat the latest front page story as naive fear-junkies. Everything is suspect. Why burn processing cycles reading stories that on their fa…

I grew up in USSR in the 80s and there were two major newspapers distributed across the whole country: "The Truth" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pravda) and "The News" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izvestia). So the joke about these newspapers was:

There is no truth in "The Truth" and there are no news in "The News".

Update: Added links to wikipedia

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#788

Post by [deleted] »

stale2002 wrote: post #671
haberman wrote: post #342

I'm still processing this information, and holding out to form a full opinion until more details become available/confirmed. In the meantime, I'm curious, for people who are angry about this: suppose it is actually true that Assange is working together with Russian hackers in an attempt to influence a US election. Do you believe there is any point at which governments should intervene to protect national sovereignty…

Acting against wikileaks would not be protecting the democratic process. The democratic process is about open and free exchange of ideas and transparency. Keeping information secret by attacking journalists does NOT support democracy.

[deleted]

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#789

Post by ZoF »

jazzyk wrote: post #675
sitic wrote: post #559

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infowars is paying 5k USD for shouting “Bill Clinton is a rapist” on national TV, which has now happed serveral times during Clion campain events. Infowars itself has close ties to the Trump campain, as his surrogate Roger Stone appears often on Alex Jones show. [1] http://www.infowars.com/expose-rapist-bill-clinton-win-5k/

You are obviously missing the point here: Infowars does not hide it - it is on their website. Clinton campaign's plots/schemes would have remained unknown to the public, if not for Wikileaks.

This is not to mention that they aren't advocating 'free speech' like Alex Jones(not that I agree with him); they are actively fostering division and inciting violence between American citizens(using the mentally ill as their pawns) to manufacture outrage and promote a narrative.

I encourage anyone reading to watch the video, acknowledge it's biased and draw your own conclusions.

You can't edit words into someone's mouth.

Re: Wikileaks: Julian Assange's internet access 'cut'

#790

Post by darawk »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #757
darawk wrote: post #593

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is a difference between what you're describing is different from what is occurring -- she campaigns on LGTB rights and freedoms but her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs. Source? > She tries to run on anti-establishment but there is no-one that is more establishment than her. Sure, but that's just marketing, not substance. > She tries to run on fighting for women's rights but she…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZkK2_6H9MM Re: gay rights. How about that cackle? What is a political opportunist? The Clintons have always operated via the polls. Against gay marriage when being against it was popular, now an ardent supporter.

Yes, it is well known that she used to oppose gay marriage. However, what you sourced is not equivalent to:

> her private positions is nothing short of abject disdain for LGTBs.

Post reply on HN